For Tuesday, please post a response to Sir Thomas More's Utopia. You may respond specifically, or loosely, to one of the following prompts, or you may go your own way if you are compelled by something else. Just be sure to use specific examples from the text in your response.
1. We often think of a "Utopia" as a perfect society, but it is unlikely that More thought of his island in that way. While Utopia is obviously a critique of the England, and Europe, of the early modern period, the play presents ideals that would probably not hold up in any society where human beings live. Yet other ideals seem to be presented as viable, and preferable, alternatives. Which Utopian ideals seem like good ideas to you? Which seem unfeasible?
2. To More's Christian contemporaries, who believed that mankind was fallen and subject to diverse passions, Utopians would have seemed ridiculous. The belief that mankind can become reasonable, rational, and free from greed would have been laughable. Why, then, do you think More creates Utopians this way? Is he defeating his own purposes? If not, explain why you think More makes Utopians so rational.
3. Utopia is an example of a serio ludere, or "serious play," which is a genre that allows the author to criticize an aspect of society (the church, the monarchy, etc.) in the persona of a fictitious narrator or character, one who is himself not entirely credible. ("Hythlodaeus" means "learned in nonsense.") Do you think this lack of credibility damages the critique?
4. Book 2 of Utopia was written before Book 1. Why do you think More added Book 1? How is it important as a preparation for Book 2? Be specific.
5. Do any of Hythlodaeus's arguments about European society in Book 1 seem appropriate to our day? What parallels can you draw? Can any part of the Utopians' social structure or ideology, as presented in Book 2, apply to 2010? Use specific contemporary examples as well as specifics from the text.
Thank you. See you on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment